Constructability Considerations for Balanced Cantilever Construction

By Gunnar Lucko
1
, Student Member, ASCE, and J ess M. de la Garza
2
, A.M. ASCE

Abstract
Constructability considerations are of importance in segmental bridge construction as the
occurrence of failures of bridge superstructures under construction have highlighted. For a safe
and economical construction process the interactions between construction loads and the
permanent structural system, depending on the chosen erection method, need to be evaluated.
Segmental bridges can be constructed with methods like Balanced Cantilever Construction,
where individual spans are counterweighted about their substructure support. Time-dependent
material properties like strength of the newly cast concrete, as well as shrinkage, creep, and
relaxation influence the structural system resistance. Resulting stresses in the unfinished bridge
structure during construction can even exceed the final stresses during service.
This paper makes an educational contribution by illustrating these concepts with the case study
of the Wilson Creek Bridge in Virginia. This five-span cast-in-place bridge was constructed
using Balanced Cantilever Construction. Two form travelers were used to construct cantilever
arms about the pier tables until the full span was finally connected at midspan; casting cycle
duration for a single segment was 7 days. The contractor implemented major constructability

1
Graduate Research Assistant, The Charles E. Via, Jr. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0105, gunnar@vt.edu.
2
Professor, The Charles E. Via, J r. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0105, chema@vt.edu.
Keywords: Segmental bridges, cast-in-place concrete, erection methods, balanced cantilever construction,
construction loads, constructability.
1
changes in both the design and the construction of the bridge to facilitate a more economical
construction process.

Introduction
Construction of segmental bridge superstructures is a complex process due to the multiple effects
that arise from the erection method that is employed. Depending on the erection method, which
relates to the physical means of constructing the foundations, bridge substructure, and especially
its superstructure, the structural resistance of the bridge changes with each construction stage,
with the load conditions, the time-dependent materials behavior, and with environmental
influences. These complex interactions need to be considered in the construction engineering
structural analysis and for developing the flow of work tasks in the construction schedule.
Furthermore, each erection method requires its specific equipment and site installations to carry
out the necessary work tasks, which impacts the project budget.
Analyzing these constructability concepts on a particular project the case study of the Wilson
Creek Bridge in Southwest Virginia helps to develop better understanding of the construction
engineering practice and contributes to the safety and economy of future bridge structures. The
objective of this paper thus is to give an educational contribution that can be used for a senior
capstone course in bridge engineering. It draws heavily on the work described in detail by Lucko
(1999) that in turn initially arose from reports on failures of bridge superstructures during the
ongoing construction process (Anon. 1988, Royal Commission 1971).

2
Part I. Construction of Segmental Bridges
Concrete segmental bridges were built as early as 1925 (Plougastel Bridge) by French engineer
Freyssinet (1879-1962), who was among the first to implement prestressed concrete in bridge
construction, as Menn (1990) reports. Since then, prestressed concrete bridges, both as pre-
tensioned and post-tensioned have seen a rapid development. In most cases post-tensioning is
employed, i.e. the prestressing tendons are stressed with hydraulic jacks after the concrete has
been placed and gained a minimum strength. Usually the post-tensioning tendons are located in
steel ducts within the concrete segment and are terminated in special anchorages.
Concrete segmental bridges utilize box girder superstructures, which according to Troitsky
(1994) have been used in the U.S. since 1973. These superstructures consist of bottom slabs,
webs (that can be inclined), and a cantilevering top slab to provide maximum deck width.
Concrete box girders have multiple advantages, e.g. their versatility in alignment, width, and
depth, high torsional and bending stiffness of the closed cross-section, and an aesthetically
pleasing geometric appearance.

Segmental Bridge Construction
Segmental construction is a method of construction in which primary load-carrying members
are composed of individual members called segments post-tensioned together (Podolny and
Muller 1982, p10). Segmental construction limitations logically follow from the technical
limitations of erection methods and the construction equipment. Cranes, concrete pumps, form
travelers, and other pieces of equipment have certain physical limitations as to the volume and
weight of material that can be erected at one time.
3
Subdivision of the superstructure into segments can be made both in the transverse and the
longitudinal direction. Separation of segments in the vertical axis is found less frequently.
Vertical segmentation is used e.g. in composite bridge superstructures that consist of steel beams,
trusses, or steel box girders with a concrete deck slab. Longitudinally divided segments are load-
carrying members that span the complete length of one bridge span, e.g. the use of multiple
prestressed concrete AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials) girders, which are laid parallel and then covered with a deck. This paper focuses on
segmentation in the transverse plane only. Segments in such a bridge usually are 3 to 5 m long
(Fletcher 1984). They can weigh up to 250 metric tons in precast cantilevering construction
(Podolny and Muller 1982) or up to 300 metric tons for cast-in-place (CIP) cantilevering
construction (Fletcher 1984). Podolny and Muller (1982) caution to keep these segments as
regular in their geometry and as straight in alignment as possible and to keep obstructions
through e.g. diaphragms in the box girder at a minimum.
The erection of segments divides the overall construction process into repetitive steps that
facilitate a learning process (Fletcher 1984) and improving productivity in the subsequently
erected spans. Segmental construction thus leads to economic and rapid erection of the bridge
superstructure. A major advantage of segmental construction also is the ease with which it can be
adapted to the specific requirements of the project (e.g. geometry, span lengths, etc.) and to the
capacity of the equipment available to the contractor.

Cantilevering Method
Cantilevering is an erection method in which individual bridge segments (the primary load-
carrying members) are sequentially erected at the tip of the self-supporting superstructure. Post-
4
tensioning with longitudinal prestressing tendons is employed to hold the segments in the
cantilever arms (i.e. span halves) together and to provide the needed moment resistance to
withstand dead loads and live loads. The Cantilevering Method can be applied to both precast
and cast-in-place construction. Particularly for cast-in-place construction the influence of the
early loading of newly cast segments as well as the different segment ages in the superstructure
need to be considered in the structural analysis of the erection process. German engineers first
used cast-in-place cantilevering in 1950 for a 62-m long span, as Fletcher (1984) reports.
However, the cantilevering method is much older and had already been used in Asia for wooden
structures of the earliest times, according to Podolny and Muller (1982).
Special construction equipment is employed in cast-in-place cantilevering. Form travelers are
attached to the tip of the cantilever arms and provide external and internal formwork for cast-in-
place construction of box girder superstructures and incorporate several work access platforms.
The form travelers consist of rhomboid-shaped steel framework with transverse front and back
main trusses and bracing and allow adjustment to the required bridge superstructure geometry for
each segment.
Cantilevering commences at one of the supports of the superstructure, i.e. a pier table or an
abutment. As shown in Figure 1, a distinction is made between Balanced Cantilever
Construction, where an erected span half is counterweighted about the pier support by a
concurrently erected span half in a scales-like manner, and the one-directional Progressive
Placement Method, where the erected span can additionally be supported by overhead stay
cables. For both Balanced Cantilever Construction and for the Progressive Placement Method,
temporary towers (with vertical prestressing against uplift, if necessary) or even counterweights
may be employed for temporary support of the span.
5
Other erection methods for concrete bridge superstructures are e.g. use of falsework, Incremental
Launching, and Span-By-Span Erection. Various authors, e.g. Podolny and Muller (1982),
Mathivat (1983), and Liebenberg (1992) have provided comprehensive introductions into these
erection methods. This paper focuses on Balanced Cantilever Construction, which is also known
as Free Cantilever Construction (Podolny and Muller 1982).

Part II. Constructability Considerations
The design and construction of bridge superstructures requires thorough planning that both
calculates and evaluates the effects of the erection method. Figure 2 provides a comprehensive
schematic for cast-in-place Balanced Cantilever Construction and the complex interactions of the
multiple variables: Time-dependent materials behavior, construction loads, and the permanent
structural system that is sequentially erected. This graphic is based on information provided by
Barker and Puckett (1997, pp455-466), Bishara and Papakonstantinou (1990), and Shiu and
Russell (1987).
Figure 2 shows the complete construction process of a bridge superstructure with Balanced
Cantilever Construction, beginning with the design of the individual segments and the pier table,
i.e. geometry, the properties of the concrete mixture design, and the reinforcement and
prestressing tendon layout. Also, cast-in-place segments may be partially composed of precast
segments, e.g. precast webs. After the pier table has been constructed, individual segments will
be cast in the formwork of the form travelers with the concrete being placed in several lifts and
cured until sufficient compressive strength has been achieved. Laboratory tests are performed to
determine the actual strength of the concrete. In some cases, to keep the segment casting cycle
duration short, segments will be stressed only two days after casting when the concrete has not
6
yet developed the full specified 28-day strength. Then, the longitudinal prestressing tendons
within the newly cast segment will be post-tensioned to rigidly connect it with the existing
cantilever arm. Next, the formwork will be stripped. Upon advancing the form traveler into its
new position, the whole casting cycle can begin again to construct the subsequent segment, as
shown in the vertical center axis of the diagram in Figure 2. Different segment ages within the
bridge superstructure from this successive casting naturally also lead to different concrete
strength. Each concrete segment must possess the structural capacity to support the subsequently
cast segments. The early loading of newly cast segments usually creates span deflections that are
larger than for precast cantilevers. The camber of the superstructure compensates for these
deflections to reach the planned alignment after construction has been completed and further
time-dependent material effects have occurred. A detailed scheme of a single segment casting
cycle including the individual work tasks is provided in Part III of this paper.
The alternating stepwise growth of the cantilever arm lengths influences the post-tensioning
tendons by causing both initial losses and long-term losses of prestressing force in the
longitudinal tendons (Barker and Puckett 1997). Each segment that is added to the structure
changes the structural system itself as well as the construction loads that are applied to the
system, e.g. from advancing the form travelers. Initial loss of prestressing force results from
incremental slippage of the tendon strands in their anchorages before the wedges or nuts that
hold the strands grip seat firmly. Also, applying a prestressing force on a newly cast segment and
its predecessors will partially relieve tendons that have been stressed earlier because of the
elastic shortening of the previously cast segments. Finally, friction between the tendons and the
ducts in which they are encased reduces the overall prestressing force, as tendons in curved ducts
will contact the interior surface of the ducts (wobble effect) (Barker and Puckett 1997).
7
Apart from the aforementioned immediate losses, long-term materials behavior will further
reduce the prestressing force. Especially the young concrete with its developing compressive
strength while already being loaded through the prestressing force and segment weight is
susceptible to time-dependent effects. Creep of the concrete segments, i.e. a plastic shortening
under permanent compressive stresses, concrete shrinkage from evaporation, and finally
relaxation of the steel strands of the tendons, i.e. a stress loss under constant strain, all contribute
to reducing the prestressing force. On some bridge projects in response to the segment concrete
strength, a smaller prestressing force sufficient to support the current segments may be applied
initially with the full prestressing force applied later onto the segments when higher concrete
strength is achieved. Time-dependent materials behavior of the concrete is also dependent on the
environmental influences, particularly relative humidity and ambient temperature. Construction
loads also contribute to time-dependent effects, e.g. when the weight of the form travelers affects
the behavior of the structure throughout construction.
Structural analysis of the stresses and deformations during the construction stages and for the
finished structure must account for the aforementioned initial and long-term losses of prestress.
During construction stages, the formwork is aligned according to the camber data that have been
determined during structural analysis. Geometry control data from the structural analysis and
from daily field surveys are used to control the alignment of the bridge during its erection. This
includes accurately meeting the two span halves for midspan closure, and after completion of the
bridge superstructure by performing on-site surveying of the constructed bridge geometry and
comparing this to the calculated profile.
In Balanced Cantilever Construction of a bridge with several spans, the individual cantilever
arms grow until they meet at midspan. Before midspan closure, the cantilevers will have reached
8
their most unfavorable condition with their length and weight being at a maximum while
structural redundancy through a continuous span structure has not been achieved yet. Stresses in
such an unfinished structural system can considerably exceed the stresses in the final structure
under its anticipated live load. Commonly, a closure segment will be placed to connect both
halves and form a continuous superstructure span, which will be a statically indeterminate
system. In some cases, hydraulic jacks and dead weights are used to carefully correct minor
misalignments between the two cantilever tips and also to compensate some of the long-term
effects described above by jacking the cantilever arms apart before placing the closure segment
(Matt et al. 1988). However, introducing additional stresses into the structure upon the
completion of each span should be avoided, if possible. The form travelers will be dismantled
and removed, resulting in an upward deflection of the cantilever tips. So-called continuity or
integration tendons at the bottom of the segments (as opposed to the cantilever tendons in the top
part of the segments) will be stressed after the concrete of the closure segment has reached
sufficient strength (Mathivat 1983). Upon closure at midspan, the statical system changes from a
cantilever (with tension at the top over the support) to a beam on several supports (with tension
at the bottom in the spans). Internal stress redistribution takes place in the superstructure, shifting
the moments from the supports more towards the free span and changing the stress distribution
within the segments. It is caused by the boundary conditions of the newly continuous
indeterminate statical system which restrain the former cantilevers in rotation and deflections
that otherwise would have taken place (Bishara and Papakonstantinou 1990). Time-dependent
effects with respect to materials behavior, however, still continue to take place, as indicated in
the diagram in Figure 2. Settlements of the substructure (i.e. horizontal or vertical movements or
rotation of the foundations) now affect the overall structure.
9
Finally, the completed structure will undergo additional loading from superimposed dead loads,
e.g. pavement, barriers, and accessories, as well as from the in-service dynamic live loads from
vehicle traffic and wind. Moreover, environmental influences will affect the structure both
during its construction and its service life.
The structural analysis of the bridge and, consequently, construction engineering must consider
the complex integration of the following factors: Construction method and erection sequence,
bridge geometry, statical system, materials behavior, and loading conditions. The Construction
Industry Institute (CII), an organization composed of many key players in the U.S. construction
industry, which was founded to foster safety and economy of construction projects through
research, defines constructability as follows (CII 1986, p2):
Constructability is the optimum use of construction knowledge and experience in planning,
design, procurement, and field operations to achieve overall project objectives. Maximum
benefits occur when people with construction knowledge and experience become involved at the
very beginning of a project.
Planning for constructability of a structure as outlined in the above paragraphs thus integrates
both design and construction and contributes to the safety and quality of bridges and other
engineering structures.

Part III. The Wilson Creek Bridge Case Study
The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) is the owner of the bridge structure. VDOT
was represented through its Structure and Bridge Division, which in turn assigned the structural
design work for bidding purposes to Figg Engineers, Inc. of Tallahassee, FL. The low bidder,
PCL Civil Constructors, Inc. of Coral Springs, FL was awarded the contract for the $
10
14,647,120.00 project in J une of 1998. PCL selected J anssen & Spaans Engineering, Inc. of
Indianapolis, IN as their construction engineering consultant to prepare the detailed erection
calculations and shop drawings for actual execution of the work. J anssen & Spaans Engineering,
Inc. also did calculations and shop drawings for the changes in the design and construction,
which included pier table and segment geometry, and pier erection sequence. Construction of the
Wilson Creek Bridge and the surrounding works commenced in Summer of 1998 and was
completed in Spring of 2001.

Location and Background
Wilson Creek Bridge crosses Wilson Creek and Ellett Road (Route 723) near Blacksburg, VA
and will serve to improve the regional traffic infrastructure in Southwest Virginia. It is part of
Virginias Smart Road Project, a state-of-the-art research site with a fully instrumented roadway
to conduct research on safer highways and automated vehicles. The Smart Road Project ties into
Route 460 and shall eventually connect it to Interstate I-81. It is carried out by VDOT, the Center
for Transportation Research (CTR) at Virginia Tech, and by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA).

Dimensions and Geometry
The bridge superstructure has a total length of 605.00 m between the abutments and is divided
into three center spans of 144.00 m length and two side spans that are 86.50 m long, measured
center-to-center. The cross-section of the bridge is a single-cell box girder with cantilevering
flanges and inclined webs, a total width of 12.00 m and a variable depth that reduces from 9.50
m at the pier table to 3.70 m at midspan in a quasi-parabolic curve of the box girder soffit. Due to
11
this in conjunction with the inclined webs the width of the bottom slab is variable. Being straight
in alignment, the bridge has a 6 % down grade towards the center of Span 3 and a transverse
slope of 2 % for drainage purposes. The bridge superstructure incorporates a camber to account
for time-dependent deflections in final alignment as mentioned in Part II of this paper. An overall
elevation of the Wilson Creek Bridge is provided in Figure 3.
The four rectangular piers of the bridge are hollow cast-in-place shafts with architectural
shaping, having a vertical taper on all sides and niches with natural stone inlays. Depending on
the shape of the valley and the downgrade of the bridge, the piers reach heights of 24.524 m (Pier
1), 41.314 m (Pier 2), 38.514 m (Pier 3) and 25.943 m (Pier 4). Their top width at the pier table
is 6.00 m, the top depth is 3.75 m; dimensions at the bottom vary due to the taper and the
different heights (VDOT 1997).

Foundations and Substructure
Both abutments of the bridge rest on rectangular spread foundations that are 4.05 m long, 12.00
m wide, and on average 1.30 m deep. For construction of Abutment A (northeast end) a fill of
grouted riprap was necessary to stabilize the embankment. Abutment A rests on a grid of HP
wide flange bearing piles, as bedrock is only found in greater depth. Abutment B (southwest end)
and all piers rest on simple spread footings that provide the necessary load-bearing capacity. Pier
footings are massive concrete plates of between 12.00 m and 14.00 m square and between 3.00
m and 3.50 m thickness. The abutments of Wilson Creek Bridge are wing wall abutments that are
identical except for the aforementioned difference in their foundations. They are 12.00 m wide
and 10.00 m long and carry the pairs of guided pot expansion bearings on which the ends of the
12
superstructure rest. Stiffening 1.875-m thick diaphragms are located in the box girders above the
bearings. Expansion joints are located at both ends of the bridge superstructure.
The four bridge piers were constructed vertically cast-in-place with placement heights of about
6.00 m (variable to facilitate an about equal volume of concrete in each placement). Two
different sets of formwork were used, first a starter form for the base segments and then a
climbing form that consisted of exterior and interior modular panels on a steel framework for
rapid assembly and dismantling. Formwork panels were adjusted to the varying dimensions of
the tapering pier for each placement. On top of the piers the pier tables were constructed cast-in-
place in separate formwork that rested on steel falsework, as shown in Figure 4. These pier
tables, due to their massiveness were constructed in four major placements, each consisting of
several individual lifts (Sean Bush, personal communication, September 17, 1999). They have a
depth of 9.50 m, incorporate additional reinforcement in the box girder webs, and feature two
1.00-m thick, heavily reinforced vertical diaphragms within the box girder cross-section to
facilitate the flow of forces into the rigidly connected substructure. The pier table, whose cross-
section is shown in Figure 5, provides the necessary resistance to bending moments from some
segment imbalance that remains due to a time lag between identical construction operations on
both cantilever arms, although the special asymmetry of the pier table already reduces bending
moments.

Material Properties and Volumes
The superstructure of Wilson Creek Bridge (6,451 m
3
concrete) and its piers (1,615 m
3
) are built
from concrete with a 28-day compressive strength of 55 MPa that has high early strength and
low permeability (VDOT 1997). Minimum required strength of 30 MPa for prestressing in some
13
cases has been reached after only 24 hours, according to the Project Engineer (Sean Bush,
personal communication, September 17, 1999). Abutments (162 m
3
), abutment footings (126 m
3
)
and pier footings (2,236 m
3
) are constructed from concrete with a 28-day compressive strength
of 30 MPa (VDOT 1997).
The reinforcement of type ASTM A615M has a yield strength of 420 MPa and is by
specifications required to be epoxy-coated for both superstructure and abutments. Prestressing
tendons are composed of 19 individual seven-wire strands that consist of ASTM A416 grade 270
steel with low relaxation and have an ultimate strength of 1,862 MPa (VDOT 1998).
Arrangements of prestressing tendons and their sequence of post-tensioning and stressing forces
are provided in the plans (VDOT 1997) and in the detailed shop drawings for Wilson Creek
Bridge. Longitudinal prestressing tendons are post-tensioned from one of their ends only,
alternating between both ends of the cantilever arms, which is expected to give a more even
distribution of prestressing force in the superstructure (Sean Bush, personal communication,
September 17, 1999). The tendons are anchored in special anchorage blocks called blisters,
which are located on the inside bottom edges of the box girder; empty blisters are provided in
case additional post-tensioning is needed in the future due to increasing live loads. All
longitudinal tendons are installed in galvanized corrugated steel ducts. Transverse tendons,
which are found in the cantilevering top slab of the box girder use polyethylene or steel flat ducts
for transverse tendons as per the specifications (VDOT 1997).

Construction Engineering Considerations
Based on the description of Balanced Cantilever Construction in Part II of this paper that was
illustrated by Figure 2 and the previous information on Wilson Creek Bridge itself, it now
14
becomes obvious which special considerations the construction engineers had to make in
planning its construction. Since Wilson Creek Bridge was erected cast-in-place, the
specifications called for concrete with high early strength, so that newly cast segments could
withstand the loads from advancing the form traveler and from placing subsequent segments,
through which the cantilever arms grow step-by-step. The different ages and compressive
strengths of these segments cause the modulus of elasticity E of the concrete to be quite
heterogeneous along the spans, in addition to the moment of inertia I changing with the variable
box girder height. Structural analysis had to be carried out for each of these construction stages,
so that the necessary amount of prestressing tendons and their layout could be determined, as
well as calculation of the necessary camber of the superstructure. Two major types of
longitudinal prestressing tendons are located in the superstructure, so-called cantilever tendons in
the top slab and so-called continuity tendons in the bottom slab (VDOT 1997.
Casting of the individual segments for the Wilson Creek Bridge followed a closely prescribed
procedure to ensure the required accuracy. Concrete samples were tested to confirm that at least
the minimum specified compressive strength had been reached in a segment by the beginning of
the subsequent casting cycle. At each construction stage, surveying was performed prior to
sunrise (to avoid temperature changes creating deformations of the bridge) on a series of
prominent points around the circumference of the newest segment, as well as along the cantilever
arms. Elevations were compared with the computer-generated profile for the respective step to
ensure that deviations from the ideal alignment would be kept within the permissible range for
the accumulated error of 1/1000 of the span length (VDOT 1998).


15
Segment Casting Cycle
Based on Mathivat (1983, p201) an overview of casting cycle steps and typical values for their
duration is provided in Table 1. It should be noted that the given steps are generic and would be
broken down further for planning of the actual execution. Construction of the superstructure of
Wilson Creek Bridge closely followed the duration for the individual steps given by Mathivat
(1983), with the difference of allowing three days instead of two for installation of reinforcement
and prestressing tendons and reducing curing duration to two days. With respect to the overall
duration of one casting cycle, British engineer Fletcher (1984, p17) gives information that it
generally settles down to one pour [i.e. segment placement] per shutter [form traveler] per
week. He also names important factors that influence casting cycle duration:
A learning effect takes place due to the repetitive nature of the segmental work tasks;
Speed of reinforcement and tendon installation and speed of concrete placement depend on
the size of the segment;
Form traveler adjustment takes longer when changes in segment geometry, e.g. variation in
the box girder depth or slab width occur;
Form traveler adjustment takes longer for incorporation of special details, e.g. diaphragms
and tendon anchorages, due to additional formwork and reinforcement installation;
Adverse conditions, such as inclement weather (e.g. low temperatures) can delay sufficient
gain of compressive strength of the concrete, which provides the lower limit for the casting
cycle duration. The quality of each individual segment in the cantilevering chain of cast-in-
place segments is critical to the structural integrity of the entire superstructure.
The casting cycle for Wilson Creek Bridge can be broken down into eight major steps as shown
in Figure 6. In Step 1 the form traveler that is shown in Figure 7 is detached from its rails, which
16
are then moved forward, anchored firmly with hydraulic tie-downs, and the form traveler is set
back onto the rails. In Step 2, the form traveler with its exterior forms is advanced with hydraulic
jacks, brought into alignment according to the calculated camber data, and is anchored in the
new position over the end of the cantilever, as shown in Figure 8. Once the form traveler has
been set up, a work crew can manually install reinforcement in the bottom slab and webs in Step
3, as the form traveler framework and bracing does not provide space to lift preassembled
reinforcement cages into place. Also, a carpenter builds a custom-made plywood bulkhead that
will close the formwork at its front face during casting and curing. Step 4 comprises of
advancing the interior formwork as well, which would previously have obstructed the
reinforcement installation. The bulkhead, interior formwork, and exterior top slab formwork can
be seen in Figure 9. To keep both forms together, wall ties are installed. Finally, the
reinforcement for the top slab is put in place. In Step 5 the reinforcement crew installs and
couples ducts for the longitudinal and transverse prestressing tendons and inserts the tendons into
the ducts. In Step 6 the concreting crew places concrete into the bottom slab, the webs, and the
top slab of the new segment. Concrete is placed through tremie pipes that run through openings
in the formwork panels. The individual concrete lifts are consolidated using internal vibrators.
During Step 7 the concrete is curing to achieve sufficient compressive strength and durability, so
that it can withstand the construction loads and the in-service loads as well as environmental
influences. Finally, transverse tendons in the top slab and the longitudinal cantilever tendons are
stressed and their ducts are filled with grout in Step 8, the forms will subsequently be stripped
from the segment, and a new casting cycle can begin.
The aforementioned casting cycle was repeated a dozen times on both cantilever arms, as shown
in Figure 10, until midspan had been reached and the closure segment was placed, as shown in
17
Figure 11. Only one set of two form travelers was used in this project for economical reasons.
Thus, cantilevering was performed subsequently about all pier tables in the order of Pier 2 Pier
3 Pier 4 Pier 1 to construct the bridge superstructure. However, work tasks were not
performed concurrently on both cantilever arms, as mentioned above. Figure 12 provides a linear
schedule for the beginning cantilevering operation about Pier 2. For both cantilever arms, which
were referred to as the surveying Downstation (in the direction of Abutment A) and
Upstation (in the direction of Abutment B), it clearly shows the curing time for newly placed
segments before the casting cycle begins anew. Construction of each segment is shown as a
continuous operation to keep this schematic linear schedule easy to read; in reality each segment
involves many individual tasks like formwork setup, reinforcement installation, and concrete
placement, as described above. Note also the planned lag of two days between repetitions of
identical operations for pairs of equivalent segments on both sides, like Segments 1 and 2,
Segments 3 and 4, etc. This time lag allowed optimized allocation of work forces by reducing
lead-time for each crew, as the crews for formwork setup, reinforcement installation, and
concrete placement alternated between the cantilever arms. Some reduction of the duration of
work activities could be observed because of (a) the reduction of segment dimensions, i.e. less
volume of concrete per segment towards midspan and (b) due to a learning effect from the
repetitive nature of the casting cycle (Sean Bush, personal communication, September 17, 1999).
A schematic of the cantilevering operations that combines the information from Table 1 and
Figure 12 is provided in Figure 13.


18
Constructability Changes for Superstructure
Segment and Pier Table Lengths
Initially, plans foresaw a pier table length of 6.00 m with an asymmetry of to the pier centerline,
and several types of segments, being 4.50 m long in the spans and 3.00 m at the closure segments
but only 2.25 m near the pier table (VDOT 1997). Keeping deeper segments shorter was
intended to level volumes of concrete placement during construction. As permissible under the
contract, the contractor modified the segment lengths and the length of the pier table as follows
to facilitate a smoother construction process with the Balanced Cantilever Method. The segment
length was changed to be 5.00 m each with a 4.00-m long closure segment, as shown in Figure
14 in comparison with the original arrangement. It should be noted that a segment length of 5.00
m is at the upper end of what is considered technically common (Fletcher 1984).
Moreover, the pier table design was changed to 15.00 m length and an asymmetry of 2.50 m to
the pier centerline. Several initial segments were now already incorporated in the pier tables
themselves. The number of casting cycles for the individual cantilever arms was thus reduced
and at the same time less form traveler adjustments would become necessary, as all segments
would have equal length throughout the spans. Cantilevering was to begin with a segment at the
Downstation end of the pier table. This major design change required redesigning the form
traveler specifications, changing the shop drawings containing segment geometry data as well as
performing structural calculations completely anew, but reduced the overall duration of
cantilever construction.
Due to crew availability and labor cost, segments were to be placed about the pier tables in an
alternating manner. The aforementioned initial asymmetry of 2.50 m, i.e. half a segment length,
of the pier tables effectively reduces the overturning moments due to segment imbalance in the
19
bridge superstructure. At any point in time the imbalance between both cantilever arms will
equal only half a segment weight because the asymmetric pier table compensates for the
remaining imbalance. In other words, the side with the newly added segment will be half a
segment longer and heavier until another segment is cast on the other cantilever arm, which
in turn makes that side longer and heavier. Had the alternating segment placement been
undertaken without this asymmetry, the imbalance would always have amounted to a full
segment weight. A schematic of this concept is provided in Figure 15.
Using the simple statical systems without (A) and with (B) pier table asymmetry on the right
cantilever arm as shown in Figure 16, the effect of the segment imbalance on the overturning
moment M at the base of the pier table can be determined as per Equation 1.

M = w (l
1
2
l
2
2
) Equation 1

It shall be assumed that all superstructure segments in this model have a constant geometry, i.e.
equal length l
i
and weight w
i
(with the subscript i being the segment number) in the cantilever
arms of total length l
1
and l
2
. For simplification the load per unit length w shall be assumed to be
equal to 1 and the individual segment length l
i
shall also be 1. Subsequently adding segments to
the systems increases the overturning moment M, however in a different manner for Systems A
and B. Use of System B results in a reduction in M that ranges from initially 25 % to a
maximum reduction of 50 % as compared to System A without the pier table asymmetry. Since
the lengths l
1
and l
2
in Equation 1 are squared, the percent moment reduction exhibits an
asymptotic behavior towards 50 % reduction with increasing cantilever length. Table 2
20
summarizes the calculated overturning moments for the first 12 segments in the two systems and
gives the percentage of moment reduction achieved by System B (with asymmetry).

Pier Erection Sequence
In order to optimize the erection sequence of construction for the Wilson Creek Bridge the
contractor chose to alter the order in which its piers would be erected and cantilevering from
their pier tables would be started. The actual order used was Pier 2 Pier 3 Pier 4 Pier 1, so
that construction of the highest one, Pier 2, with its shaft height of 41.314 m could be carried out
first. While the cantilever arms of one pier were constructed the next pier was already
constructed so that cantilevering could continue on that following pier without delay as soon as
the available set of form travelers had been dismounted and set up again. This staged erection
sequence also generated more time on the schedule to deal with Pier 1 at the sloping edge of the
valley, where accessibility with heavy-lift cranes for the form traveler setup and materials supply
was limited and required additional earthwork to create sufficient workspace.

Discussion of Construction of the Wilson Creek Bridge
The Wilson Creek Bridge is an excellent example to show the complexities that arise during
Balanced Cantilever Construction with cast-in-place segments. Using the diagram shown in
Figure 2 enables understanding short-term effects during construction as well as long-term
effects that take place long after the bridge superstructure has been completed. In particular, the
importance of the specific casting cycle within the overall superstructure erection is emphasized
in the diagram. Casting cycles of one week including the weekend for curing of the newly placed
concrete are most common in Balanced Cantilever Construction. In the case of the Wilson Creek
21
Bridge, the casting cycle as introduced in Figure 6 used only two days for curing of any newly
cast segment (as shown in Table 1) to achieve sufficient strength for being post-tensioned to the
previous segments but alleviated this by using concrete with high early strength. Furthermore the
contractor chose to use only one set of form travelers and have the crews alternate between the
two cantilever arms where identical operations would be performed with a two day time lag, as
was depicted in Figures 12 and 13. A special asymmetry of the pier table was implemented to
reduce the imbalance arising from these alternating operations. Designing the pier tables to be
asymmetric by exactly half a segment length reduced the potentially overturning moments from
segment imbalance by as much as 50 % as compared with an alternating segment placement
about a pier table without asymmetry. A learning effect on some tasks related to segment casting
could be observed during project execution, according to the Project Engineer (Sean Bush,
personal communication, September 17, 1999). Altogether, the large scale of the Wilson Creek
Bridge and its carefully planned operations show impressively how Balanced Cantilever
Construction has developed since its introduction in the Construction Industry.

Conclusion
This paper provided an introduction to constructability concepts in segmental bridge
superstructure erection. The various influences that arise from the chosen erection method, the
bridge geometry, and the materials behavior and their complex interactions were outlined
focusing on Balanced Cantilever Construction. Short-term effects and long-term effects were
introduced and put in relation with loading conditions and environmental influences in a
comprehensive diagram.
22
Construction loads depend on the actual erection method and may create higher stresses in the
structure than any loads anticipated for the bridge under service conditions could cause.
Furthermore, construction loads affect the structure in its weak stages prior to completion the
structural system has not yet reached continuity and additional redundancy from being statically
indeterminate in its final configuration. During construction the segments may have reached only
a minimum level of compressive strength that may be less than the specified 28-day compressive
strength when successor segments are added. Consideration of all construction stages with their
respective geometry and boundary conditions, structural details, time-dependent material
properties, and construction loads therefore is essential for adequately analyzing the structure
and designing against failures.
Providing the case study of the Wilson Creek Bridge in Virginia, which was erected using
Balanced Cantilever Construction, enhanced the concepts outlined in this paper and gave insight
into how these concepts are applied in real engineering practice. The segment casting cycle with
its individual steps was explained and illustrated in detail. Finally, two constructability changes
that the contractor implemented on the Wilson Creek Bridge to optimize operations and reduce
schedule duration were presented. In particular, a redesign of the segment length in conjunction
with a planned asymmetry of the pier tables considerably reduced overturning moments from
cantilevering operations of the superstructure.
Future research could include examination of other erection methods, such as e.g. Incremental
Launching and analyze these with respect to constructability issues. Providing a collection of
several different construction methods, each illustrated with case studies of real-life examples
would be a valuable source of information in teaching future construction engineers. This can
ultimately lead to yet safer and economical construction of bridges to serve the public.
23

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dr. R. M. Barker and Dr. C. L. Roberts-Wollmann of Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University for the discussions on the topic of this paper, and Mr.
Sean Bush, Project Engineer at PCL Civil Constructors, Inc., for his friendly support of this
study.

24
Appendix I: References
Anon (1988). Zilwaukee Bridge. (Excerpt from The Zilwaukee Bridge: From the Beginning.
published by Michigan Department of Transportation) Concrete International 10(5), 68-
75.
Barker, R. M., Puckett, J . A. (1997). Design of Highway Bridges: Based on AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications. A Wiley-Interscience Publication, J ohn Wiley & Sons,
Inc., New York, NY.
Bishara, A. G., Papakonstantinou, N. G. (1990). Analysis of Cast-in-Place Concrete Segmental
Cantilever Bridges. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 116(5), 1247-1268.
CII (The Construction Industry Institute) (1986). Constructability: A Primer. Prepared by The
Construction Industry Institute Constructability Task Force, Publication 3-1, Third
Printing April 1990, Bureau of Engineering Research, The University of Texas at Austin,
Austin, TX.
Fletcher, M. S. (1984). In-Situ Free Cantilever Concrete Bridges. Highways and
Transportation 31(11), 6p between 10-18.
Liebenberg, A. C. (1992). Concrete Bridges: Design and Construction. Longman Scientific &
Technical, Longman Group UK Limited, Burnt Mill, Harlow, Great Britain.
Lucko, G. (1999). Means and Methods Analysis of a Cast-In-Place Balanced Cantilever
Segmental Bridge: The Wilson Creek Bridge Case Study. Thesis submitted to the Faculty
of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Science, Blacksburg, VA.
Mathivat, J . (1983). The Cantilever Construction of Prestressed Concrete Bridges. A Wiley-
Interscience Publication, J ohn Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY.
25
Menn, C. (1990). Prestressed Concrete Bridges. (Original title: Stahlbetonbrcken.) Birkhuser
Verlag AG, Basel, Switzerland.
Podolny, W., Muller, J . M. (1982). Construction and Design of Prestressed Concrete Segmental
Bridges. A Wiley-Interscience Publication, J ohn Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY.
Royal Commission (Barber, E. H. E., Bull, F. B., Shirley-Smith, H.) (1971). Report of Royal
Commission into the failure of West Gate Bridge. C. H. Rixon, Government Printer,
Melbourne, Australia.
Shiu, K.-N., Russell, H. G. (1987). Effects of time-dependent concrete properties on prestress
losses. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 14(5), 649-654.
Troitsky, M. S. (1994). Planning and Design of Bridges. J ohn Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York,
NY.
VDOT (Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Transportation) (1997): Proposed Bridge on
Smart Road over Wilson Creek and Route 723 Montgomery County 0.3 km E. of NS
RWY. Project IVHS-060-101, B603. Plan drawings, Structure and Bridge Division,
Richmond, VA.
VDOT (Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Transportation) (1998): Proposal of the
Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Transportation. Order No. A81. Contract No.
C00016931C02, Richmond, VA.

Appendix II: Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
E = modulus of elasticity;
I = moment of inertia;
26
l = cantilever arm length;
w = load per unit length of cantilever arms;
M = overturning moment for statical system.

Subscripts
A = statical system;
B = statical system with asymmetry;
i = segment number;
1, 2 = cantilever arm number.

27


Figure and Table Captions


Table 1: Typical Duration of Casting Cycle Steps
Based on Mathivat (1983, p201) and Bush (Personal communication, September
17, 1999).
Table 2: Reduction of Overturning Moments through Pier Table Asymmetry


Figure 1: Comparison of Balanced Cantilever Construction and Progressive Placement
Method
Figure 2: Effects of Cast-In-Place Balanced Cantilever Construction
Based on Barker and Puckett (1997, pp455-466), Bishara and Papakonstantinou
(1990), and Shiu and Russell (1987).
Figure 3: Overall Elevation of Wilson Creek Bridge
Figure 4: Pier Table Formwork on Pier 3
Figure 5: Pier Table Cross-Section Looking Upstation
Based on VDOT (1997).
Figure 6: Scheme of the Segment Casting Cycle
Figure 7: Form Traveler Rear View with Rails
Figure 8: Form Traveler Setup on Pier 2
Figure 9: Segment Bulkhead and Top Slab Formwork
Figure 10: Cantilevering about Pier 2 at a Later Stage


Figure 11: Midspan Closure Placements about Pier 4
Courtesy of Dr. Michael C. Vorster, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University.
Figure 12: Linear Schedule for Alternating Cantilevering Operations
Figure 13: Scheme of the Alternating Cantilevering Operations
Based on Information from PCL Civil Constructors, Inc., Coral Springs, FL
Figure 14: Comparison of Original and Changed Segment and Pier Table Lengths
Figure 15: Pier Table Initial Asymmetry for Reduction of Overturning Moments
Figure 16: Simple Statical System for Calculation of Moment Reduction







Typical
Duration
(Mathivat
1983, p201)
(1)
Actual Field
Duration
(Wilson Creek
Bridge)
(2)
Activities
Performed


(3)
1 Day 1 Day Post-tensioning tendons
(previous segment)
Stripping formwork
Advancing form traveler
2 Days 3 Days Placing reinforcement,
ducts, and tendons
1 Day 1 Day Placing concrete for
bottom slab, webs,
and top slab
3 Days 2 Days Curing concrete
(including weekend)
Total 7 Days Total 7 Days Continuous Surveying







Segment
Number
i
(1)
Added
To
Side
(2)
Moment M
A

Without
Asymmetry
(3)
Moment M
B

With
Asymmetry
(4)
Percent Moment
Reduction
( M
A
- M
B
) / M
A

(5)
1 Left 0.500 0.375 25.00 %
2 Right 0.000 -0.625
3 Left 1.500 0.875 41.67 %
4 Right 0.000 -1.125
5 Left 2.500 1.375 45.00 %
6 Right 0.000 -1.625
7 Left 3.500 1.875 46.43 %
8 Right 0.000 -2.125
9 Left 4.500 2.375 47.22 %
10 Right 0.000 -2.625
11 Left 5.500 2.875 47.73 %
12 Right 0.000 -3.125
13 Left Etc. Etc. Etc.









Balanced Cantilever Construction
Form
Traveler
Pier
with
Forms
Pier
Table
Temporary Support
Tower with Vertical
Prestressing
Progressive Placement Method
Temporary
Erection
Support
Erection
Derrick
Precast
Segment
Overhead Stay Cables



















































Structural Analysis
Stresses, Deformations
Camber Data
(Form Alignment)
Geometry Control
Data (Surveying)
Relaxation of steel strands
(stress loss under constant strain)
Creep of concrete member
(plastic deformation under stress)
Shrinkage of concrete member
(volume change from evaporation)
Long-term Loss of Prestress
Elastic shortening of member
(relieves tendons stressed earlier)
Friction between tendon and duct
(wobble effect of curved ducts)
Slippage of strands in anchorages
(before wedges or nuts grip firmly)
Initial Loss of Prestress
Segment 1
Segment 2
Segment ...
Midspan
Closure
Segment
Jacking for
alignment
Redistribution (Internal Stresses)
Moments shift from
pier towards span
Interaction
Dynamic Live Loads
(In-Service)
(Vehicle traffic, wind)
New boundary
conditions of
indeterminate
system as
restraints
Settlements cause
rotation or hor. or
vert. movement
of foundations
Continuous Structure
Cantilever System
Environmental
Influences
(Rel. humidity, temp.)
Superimposed Dead
Loads (Pavement,
barriers, accessories)
Geometry
Concrete Mixture Design
Reinforcement
Tendon Profile
Segment Design Segment Composition
Single placement (in lifts)
or prefabricated parts, e.g.
precast webs for segment


C
a
s
t
i
n
g

C
y
c
l
e



f
o
r

S
t
e
p
w
i
s
e



C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n



D
e
v
e
l
o
p
i
n
g



S
e
g
m
e
n
t

A
g
e



a
n
d

S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

Cast, Cure,
Prestress
and Grout,
Strip Form
Construction Engineering
Pier Table
Move, Set, Anchor Form Traveler








Wilson Creek Bridge
Abutment A
Pier 1 Pier 3 Pier 4 Pier 2
Abutment B
Ellett
Road
Wilson
Creek
86.50 m 144.00 m 144.00 m 144.00 m 86.50 m








A
c
c
e
s
s

O
p
e
n
i
n
g

i
n

B
o
t
h

D
i
a
p
h
r
a
g
m
s

0
.
4
0

12.00


0.90 1.65 0.60 1.75 2.20 1.75 0.60 1.65 0.90



0
.
8
5


1
.
2
5













6
.
0
5










0
.
7
2














0
.
2
3








9
.
5
0

Note:

Segment has a
2 % transverse
slope and thus
is tilted to the
vertical axis of
the pier.

All dimensions
are in [m].








2. Advance and
anchor traveler
with exterior
forms on rails
1. Detach form
traveler from
rails
Advance and
anchor rails
Set traveler
on rails
3. Install rebar
in bottom slab
and webs
Build bulkhead
7. Cure
concrete to
achieve strength
and durability
6. Place
concrete into
bottom slab,
webs, top slab
8. Stress
and grout
transverse and
cantilever
tendons
Strip forms
4. Advance the
interior form-
work
Install wall ties
Install rebar in
top slab
5. Install
longitudinal
and transverse
top slab tendon
ducts and
tendons








Downstation Pier 2 Upstation
Work crews alternate
5. 3. 1. 2. 4. 6.
Time
[days]
Location
Time lag
Curing
Curing
Curing






Day 1: Prestress,
strip form, move
Day 5: Place
segment concrete
Day 5: Place
segment concrete
Day 1: Prestress,
strip form, move
Day 6 - 7: Cure
concrete (cover,
keep newly
placed segment
moist and warm)
Day 6 - 7: Cure
concrete (cover,
keep newly
placed segment
moist and warm)
Day 2 - 4: Place
reinforcement in
bottom slab and
webs, move
interior forms,
place top slab
reinforcement,
ducts, tendons
Day 2 - 4: Place
reinforcement in
bottom slab and
webs, move
interior forms,
place top slab
reinforcement,
ducts, tendons






Original Segment and
Pier Table Lengths [m]
Changed Segment and
Pier Table Lengths [m]
3.00 13 x 4.50 4 x 2.25 6 x 2.25 12 x 4.50 3.00
4.00 13 x 5.00 6.25 8.75 12 x 5.00 4.00
6.00
Downstation
Upstation








Adding New Segment Shifts
Imbalance to Other Side
Segment 1 Pier Table Segment 2 Segment 3
Half a Segment Length
Initial Asymmetry








M M
System A
Without Pier Table
Asymmetry
System B
With Pier Table
Asymmetry
l
1
l
2
l
1
l
2

w w

Asymmetry